GPS Tracking Devices
Law enforcement science is advancing at an incredibly fast rate. But sometimes, the changes in the laws themselves aren’t keeping up with the rapid technological progress. That’s why we sometimes need the courts to intervene.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in a case surrounding the tracking of suspects using global positioning systems. It involved the federal authorities surreptitiously attaching a GPS device to the exterior of a vehicle that was being driven by a suspected drug kingpin in the District of Columbia. Antoine Jones was convicted on drug trafficking charges in part due to the evidence obtained by authorities from the GPS device.
The high court ruled unanimously that law enforcement agents must obtain a valid court-issued warrant before attaching such a device to a suspect’s vehicle (which the agents pursuing Jones did not do). The opinion stated that failing to get a warrant before planting a GPS device violates an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
However, the ruling did not clarify the court’s overall position on GPS surveillance. Left unanswered were questions about the widespread use of current GPS technology (like what is available in most cell phones, many automobiles, and some computers) to monitor suspects’ whereabouts and movements. Some observers were hoping that the Supreme Court would even provide guidelines as to the legality of using traffic cameras, satellites, and web monitoring software to track people who are suspected of engaging in criminal activity.
However, the high court’s ruling in United States vs. Jones remained limited to practices involving an externally-mounted device which was attached to a citizen’s vehicle in a public place. Therefore, the legality of authorities using of what some would call “Big Brother” style monitoring tactics remains unclear.